Piltdown Superman

Seems like the hands at the Darwin Ranch would get discouraged and find more rewarding (as well as useful) employment, what with all the bad news that's been carted in lately. They're unable to let bad evolutionary stories alone because new findings get publicity mighty quick like, and those of us with a creationary persuasion won't let them get away with it. Especially those of us with unregistered assault keyboards. Largest sea sponge found, "about the size of a minivan" Credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research , 2015 Hohonu Moana Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Time to commence rewriting the textbooks and adjusting the evolutionary timelines again, since the new fossils are recalcitrant and quite a bit out of sequence according to evolutionary mythology. Colony of sea sponges was found and given an evolutionary date after  an "extinction event", but it had thrived  Uncooperative fish showed up in the fossil rec

February 12 is Question Evolution Day! One of the largest flaws in evolutionists' "logic" is the circular reasoning of the fossil record. How old is the fossil? You can tell because of the rock layers that contained it. How can you tell how old the rock layers are? Because of the fossils in them. The so-called geologic column only exists in textbooks, not in nature. Aside from the blatant question begging, this method of dating fossils also makes unwarranted assumptions about the uniformity of original conditions. Stratigraphy, the basis of geological dating, was founded in the seventeenth century on three principles proposed by Nicolas Steno: superposition, continuity, and original horizontality. Successive observations and experiments show that his stratigraphic model was not in line with experimental data, because it overlooked the major variable factor of sedimentation: the current and its chronological effects. Experiments simulating the formation o

Darwin's defenders often say that the science of genetics refutes biblical creation science and affirms gunk-to-geneticist evolution. That'll be the day! In reality, further research in genetics has been a gold mine for creation science, and the prediction by creationists that there is no "junk" DNA has been confirmed several times . Evolutionists do not help their cause by using deception and bad science, such as when they stitched together the chimpanzee genome and say those critters are our closes relatives. The DNA puzzle is not yet complete, but continues to refute evolution and support special creation. DNA puzzle, Pixabay / qimono Changes in what is known about genetics is rapidly changing, so what we read in textbooks is incomplete or even erroneous today. DNA is more than a storage medium for a n amazing a mount of information, it is a language as well. People who want to know more on the subject have an uphill climb. When scientists commence to wr

"Tweets" are  Public , Not Copyrightable  Proponents of evolution will sometimes attempt to distance themselves from the problem of the origin of life itself. Some will deny that evolution has anything to do with that subject (which is news to writers of textbooks, Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, David Attenborough's First Life  and so on). But still, they defend the arbitrary, circular reasoning of the  failed Miller-Urey experiment  and try to find explanations for abiogenesis, even though it violates scientific laws. The most logical explanation is that life was put here by the Creator. Goo-to-you, molecules-to-man, chemicals-to-cats,abiogenesis—all these terms refer to the essential starting point for evolution of life through natural processes. Yet in a massive review published in the American Chemical Society’sChemical Reviews, researchers report, “The origin of life is a fascinating, unresolved problem.” And it will remain unresolved for them until they a

With improved technology and analytic skills, well-preserved fossils are discovered more frequently. Older fossils are also being reexamined with new technology. Yet another fossil from the Cambrian is causing consternation for evolutionary paleontologists. Sometimes it is a bit surprising that previously-studied fossils are reexamined, and certain details are studied that could easily be overlooked. Bones and other hard things — sure those are are expected to be fossilized, but when brains and nervous systems were involved, paleontologists are surprised. Neurons, Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Tiny worms in the Cambrian were found to have brains. Even secular scientists will admit that brains are incredibly complex things, but to have such soft things fossilize cannot happen with the slow 'n' gradual scenario. The critters had to be buried quickly, like all those other organisms in the Cambrian, during the Genesis Flood. Once again, a rewrite of textbooks on "how brains evolved&q

After a great deal of anticipation (and attacks, even before it was available), Ray Comfort's video " Evolution vs. God " was released on August 7, 2013. It can be purchased on DVD , or watched for free on their site, YouTube or wherever it has been embedded (such as on this page). The entire video, intro to promos, runs just over 38 minutes. Atheists are furious, attacking it with typical lack of logic . Which reminds me...some of the atheists that were interviewed were trying to appear intellectual, that they accepted evolution and rejected belief in God because of honestly exploring and evaluating the evidence. Their words indicate otherwise.  Something that stood out for me is how people accepted evolution strictly on faith, without evidence. They trusted the opinions of authority figures, and would believe whatever is in the textbooks, and do not know that they are being lied to . (In fact, I believe that many atheists are engaging in what I ref

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Although an earlier article from 2014 was reasonably popular, I reckoned I had to rewrite it. Same stable, different horse. Edited 12-28-2021 What is a cult, really? As I have emphasized before,  definitions are important  so that everyone is speaking the same language. People have different connotations of the word "cult", such as black magic rituals in front of scary idols in far off places, mass suicides (such as the People's Temple led by  atheist Jim Jones ), small groups, and so on. Most cults have some degree of truth in them as well as things that appear valid but are twisted. Others think of pseudo-Christian groups like the  Christadelphians ,  Jehovah's Witnesses ,  Mormons , the Sacred Name cultist's (now defunct) Page on Facebook that pretends to be creationist , and so on. Some members of groups that are called "cults" get burrs under their saddles over the word because it is so emotionally charged, has associat

It has been said here several times that scientists are people. They have biases, errors, carelessness, and are prone to avarice like other people. Perhaps more so, since they wish to promote their perceptions of truth from their worldview. Secular scientists have more pressures, because they are trying to get the "next big thing" to bolster evolutionism and get that funding money. Pixabay / WikiImages Many people have idealized and unfair concepts of scientists. They see them as working strictly from the facts and will "follow where the evidence leads. Sure, many try to be objective and seek scientific truth, but secularists start from fundamentally flawed presuppositions. Not only incapable of logical thinking, but placing scientists on a ridiculous pedestal. If people did their homework, they would learn that scientists have been reluctant to admit the truth, committed outright fraud, allowed false conclusions to run unchecked (then blame the science

Things must have been slow around Deception Pass, since the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been keeping occupied by proving — nothing. While theories and models are expected to change in light of new evidence, it's just plain insipience to keep feeding mules that won't pull the wagon. Not only do they feed the evolution mule, but they also feed the cladistics mule. In this case, rearranging the dinosaur family tree. Assembled from images at Clker clipart In the evolutionary scheme, scientists have no idea where dinosaurs came from. But they have clades showing the alleged relationships between them and where they perch on the tree of life. (Evolutionists do this cladogram circular reasoning stuff, proving evolution by assuming evolution, in much broader ways as well.) Using new models, some evolutionists are mighty agitated, "Everything we know about dinosaurs is wrong! Textbooks have to be rewritten! Katie, bar the door!" Take this branch here, put it ov

  People have their presuppositions and do not like to have their faith threatened. One of those presuppositions is that radiometric dating proves the age of the Earth. As a matter of fact, radiometric dating contains presuppositions of its own. Take a look at the following article — all of it — and see what I am talking about. T he presupposition of long ages is an icon and foundational to the evolutionary model. Nearly every textbook and media journal teaches that the earth is billions of years old. Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution. The earth is now regarded as between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old. The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the earth is radioisotope dating. Proponents of evolution publicize radioisotope dating as a reliable and consistent method for obtaining absolute ages of rocks and the age

Horses have been popular with people for a mighty long time as pack animals, to do the work, scouting, in battle, pleasure riding, cowboy work, and much more. (A bit of trivia: the American  Plains Indians had no word for horses at first, since they were unknown on this side of the Atlantic until the Spanish brought them over.) Darwin's disciples have insisted that the evolution of the horse has a strong evidence. Prospecting for Cattle Range , Frederic Remington, 1889 If you study on the displays a spell, you'll realize that this evidence is flimsy and inconsistent; it only exists in textbooks and museum displays, not in reality. The critter presented as the earliest horse,  Hyracotherium , was discovered by Richard Owen. He called it that because of its strong resemblance to the rock badger. It was later called the "dawn horse" because: evolution. via GIPHY The number of toes and ribs changes with each specimen, and loss of features is falsely called e

Defenders of deep time, especially on social(ist) media, despise any discussion of the global Genesis Flood. Many refuse to examine evidence for it, clutching their pearls and crying that there is no reason to consider the evidence because there was no Flood. Because atheism. (One may justifiably wonder if these owlhoots have always been anti-science and anti-thought.) Uniformitarian geology cannot adequately explain many observed facts without making excuses for recalcitrant data, but creation science Flood geology does a better job — especially with an accurate geological model. Coward's Falls, Flickr / Cowboy Bob Sorensen  ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) Using extensive data, geologist Dr. Tim Clarey and others from the Institute for Creation Research made a map of the Flood effects. If evidences creationists used to support the Genesis Flood were one-off anomalies, they could arguably be easier to ignore or dismiss. Instead, geological features of the Flood stages span continents. Creatio

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen For many years, I have long contended that people are bombarded with goo-to-you evolution as if it was a fact. Darwinian evolution is not confined to college textbooks and academia, it also permeates our literature, entertainment, animated cartoons, everyday speech, politics, sports, and more. In addition, Darwin's Cheerleaders are so intent on protecting their fundamentally flawed worldview from scrutiny, they resort to sneaky word games such as equivocating "evolution" into "science", so that when we say that we oppose evolution and affirm creation, we're "science" deniers.  Anti-creationists are also very evangelistic, although many of those owlhoots don't even know what they believe and why, they just "know" that evolution is true and we're wrong. Somehow. Two of their favorite tools are badgering and ridicule, and those are often intertwined. A politician says that he rejects evolution, and left

Seems to be a frequent "explanation" for secular geologists: impact. Some huge object fell out of the sky, smacked into the earth, causing a whole heap of changes. This is followed by some kind of "then evolution did rearranging" boilerplate remark. I suspicion that it's easy to come up with feckless "science" for unobserved phenomena, especially when the main subject involves deep time, which is required by Papa Darwin. Time-lapse lightning strikes, image credit: NOAA Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents The big impact story has flaws, such as claimed strikes lacking certain evidence. In addition, lightning has been found to shock quartz and give a superficial resemblance to a meteorite impact. Lightning hits the earth about 100 times a second, and is mighty hot, too. Looks like another bit of secular geology has to be rewritten in the textbooks. For decades, geologists have looked at shocked quartz as an unambiguous sign of an a

The more things change — the more things change. A heap of evolutionary icons are being overthrown, often by evolutionists' own science. (Sorta like being shot with your own gun.) There are numerous challenges to the age of the solar system and the universe (especially with discoveries regarding Pluto), Lenski's bacteria experiments prove that a virus can stay pretty much the same, endo symbiosis needs a re-think and some actua l evidence , water on primordial Earth is being reexamined , Lucy was an extinct ape that walked on its knuckles , and more. It's a good time to be a biblical creationist! Zircon in Jack Hills, Australia's Narre Gneiss Terrane Image credit: NASA / GSFC/METI / ERSDAC / JAROS, and U.S. / Japan ASTER Science Team (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) But wait, there's another bronc bucking in the corral at the Darwin Ranch! Zircon crystals are showing traces of carbon. Darwinists are assuming that the carbon came from

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 6-21-2016 Before I went ahead with this article, I checked with some other people about the content. Three hours before auto-publish, I removed the name of the evolution stormtrooper that I dealt with, even though they thought I should use it. "Dr. Duncan, I forbid you from letting any student pass your class if they still believe in their imaginary friends by the end of the semester.  If you don’t make every student in there an atheist by the time they graduate, then you, sir, have failed as an educator!" — Dr. Robert Farris, The Deception  by Steven J. Wright , p. 68 We have seen that indoctrination is paramount in evolutionary education; students are not told how  to think (critically, honestly examining the evidence), but what  to think (presupposing that evolution is true, and then using circular reasoning to "prove" it). Although the "educator" in the example at the top is fictional, such antics are not. T

Seems that with all the attention given to the accumulation of evidence that Neanderthals were fully human , those folks called Cro-Magnon seemed to have fallen out of favor as members of the human cave man parade. They used to be in the textbooks. There are a few of reasons we don't hear much about those skilled hunters and artists much anymore. Photo of Lascaux cave painting credit: Wikimedia Commons / Prof saxx Cro-Magnons were named after an area in France where some of there skeletons were discovered. Sure, they were "cave men" at times. Let me ask you something. Does living in a cave make you "primitive"? Nope. Like other people, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon people groups were resourceful and used the shelter caves provided. (You may want to give it a try yourself .) Since their times on Earth overlapped, mayhaps Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, and "modern" humans shared some living spaces? I'm just speculating, though. The hands at the Dar

Many devotees of molecules-to-miscreant evolution have realized that abiogenesis happening on this world is impossible, and some will distance themselves from the problem with the falsehood that "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" . Others cling the the failed Miller-Urey experiment , and come up with other incoherent origin of life experiments . Some even in voke a kind of animism . Image modified from Yassine Mrabet   /Wikimedia Commons The Miller-Urey experiment was saddled up and ridden hard as "proof" that life could have happened by chance, but it proved next to nothing. Using intelligently-designed equipment in a controlled environment based on the now-abandoned "reducing atmosphere" concept, the researchers obtained some amino acids. These building blocks of life were caught in a trap and removed from the toxic environment, which invalidates the experiment. (Many images on the web conveniently leave out the trap part, or neglect